Originally Posted by Galt

I'd say, instead of fit being used to define physical prowess, it, in the context of todays society, means rational.
Now then, egoism holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value (quid pro quo).
Now, Ayn Rand wrote in one of her books the following;
"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good."
Something to chew on.

Originally Posted by Elkrazar

First, is Rand referring to an altruism which claims as its paradigm the person who gives completely from the self without regard to the self? That's just irresponsible self-destruction, and ultimately destroys the self and the community, so that kind of altruism isn't kindness, good-will, or respect.

Originally Posted by Elkrazar

Secondly: By determining the rational as being those most fit to survive in modern society, and the ultimate scale of value being based on an objective, rational basis, does that mean that those who are not rational are of a lower value than their rational companions? Or are they simply people who are less fit to survive?

Originally Posted by Elkrazar

The latter, perhaps, could connote that they are of lower value?

Originally Posted by Galt

That's the common definition we objectivists use for altruism. Because anything that isn't that, is not true altruism.

Originally Posted by Galt

They, through my objectivist lenses, are less valuable than those who are rational. And probably, as a result of them being irrational, they wouldn't be as capable to survive in this world.

1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

Originally Posted by Elkrazar

So their potential for survival is the sole measuring factor of their value? Would figures such as Mother Theresa count as being less valuable, as they spent most of their lives in charity?

Originally Posted by Galt

Yes.
Also, on the topic of Mother Teresa, for all the supposed good she's done, she's done some terrible things as well. She's accepted stolen money, advocated anti-abortion and she as a devout catholic.

Originally Posted by Elkrazar

First: A devout Catholic I can live with, the second I won't start on (threads get derailed on heated issues), but stolen money is rather egregious. It also doesn't get alone with Catholicism. I have a hard time believing it, in fact: source?

Originally Posted by Elkrazar

Second: The potential to survive is more valuable, why? Is it that they will be able to thrive in a supporting environment, and therefore benefit the community as a whole? Because they can better serve their own, rational interests? Forgive me if this is all Objectivism 101, but it's a bit alien to me that a more "rational" person (in the Objectivist context) would be more valuable than a less "rational" person.

(Forgive me if the quotation marks seem mocking, they aren't.)

Originally Posted by Galt

Yes.
Also, on the topic of Mother Teresa, for all the supposed good she's done, she's done some terrible things as well. She's accepted stolen money, advocated anti-abortion and she as a devout catholic.